Saturday, September 26, 2009

Legal Media Relations


I followed the author of the law firm website marketing article I just discussed to his own site:
Richard Lavinthal's authoritarian Web search appearances stem from decades of public, private and NGO legal media relations for some of the biggest legal cases in America.
Maybe, just maybe, the word he was looking for was "authoritative"?

That relates to the following claim:
If you search Google, Yahoo or Bing, the three top search engines delivering nearly 94% of all U.S. searches. Richard Lavinthal, and his legal PR service, PRforLAW, LLC will be displayed in five or more first--page, top-10 results.
If I search the major search engines for what? If I just keep hammering in random search terms, or assign ten thousand monkeys to the task, I'll eventually find five search phrases for which his site ranks?

He gives one example of his ranking, for the term "legal media relations". Given that there's no appreciable competition or demand for that term, that's not much of a surprise. I rank really well for "demockery in action" - without even trying. (But nobody's searching for that phrase.)

Update: The language quoted above has been rephrased,
Top search engines Google®, Yahoo®, Bing® or Ask® deliver nearly 99% of all U.S. searches. Richard Lavinthal, at PRforLAW, LLC appears in more first-page, top-10 "organic" results. These are unpaid authoritative links, There are thousands of PR practitioners in agencies of all sizes in the United States who would be pleased to appear in just one top-ten search "hit."
I am still not sure what the first assertion is intended to mean - he appears in more top search resorts than whom? (And if I were to nitpick, a comma is substituted for a period.) But it is otherwise much improved.

4 comments:

  1. You'd better watch it. That guy is nationally known and uniquely experienced.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Finally, a statement that qualifies as "authoritarian".

    I had better watch what? Making truthful, accurate statements?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Mister Thorne, you're an editor, right? You point out errors and question the writing style of content on lawyer websites on your own weblog, right? Then why are you here, by all appearances trying to intimidate people out of commenting on errors on the website of a friend of yours, when you could provide him a much better service by convincing him to hire you for an hour or two?

    Does he know you're here, acting like this? If it were me, I would be telling you, "This type of help, I don't need."

    ReplyDelete
  4. Atticus - What makes you think that Lavinthal didn't hire Thorne months ago and that is the cause of Thorne's "tone" . . . me thinks Mr. Thorne doth protest too much . . .

    Aaron - Don't confuse "authoritarian" with "ridiculous". Authoritarian involves a blind submission to authority. As far as I can see, Thorne isn't an authority by any definition with which I am familiar . . .

    CWD

    ReplyDelete